Commons:Village pump/Copyright

I had planned to upload some images from Smithsonian's "open-access" images website (https://www.si.edu/openaccess). Their home page and FAQ's page state that all of the open-access images are CC0 (https://www.si.edu/openaccess/faq).

However, after reading their "Terms of Use", I'm really confused. It says they can't guarantee that their CC0 images aren't free from other rights: "The Smithsonian does not guarantee that all Content marked with the CC0 icon is free from rights other than copyright, including rights held by third parties, or that use of such Content might not be subject to other laws, such as rights of publicity or privacy" (https://www.si.edu/termsofuse).

This doesn't make sense (to me). What does that mean for uploading here? How are people supposed to know what other rights/limitations are attached to the images? And why are they listed as CC0 if they're not in fact without limitations on use?

Any clarification would be appreciated. BetsyRogers (talk) 23:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@BetsyRogers: Commons is mainly concerned about the copyright of the content you host; the "other rights" the Smithsonian is referring to sound like non-copyright restrictions. It's unlikely that a file will end up being deleted from Commons for such a reason, but it could be of a concern to you as the uploader and those reusing the content out in the real world. If, for example, you enter into some kind of agreement with the Smithsonian in which you agree to abide by terms set by the Smithsonian, a failure to do so would be a issue between you and the Smithsonian. Similarly, reusers of Smithsonain content could still be held responsible for making sure they do so in accordance with these "other rights" as explained in COM:REUSE. As the uploader of the file, you could provide a link to these "other rights" in the file's description or use a template like the ones in Category:Restriction tags: it's considered good practice when you're aware of them. You're unlikely, though, going end up to penalized by Commons if you don't. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As for rights of publicity or privacy, if you think an image you upload may raise concerns on that front, it is usually a good idea to mark it with {{Personality rights}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

But how would I know about any other rights if they're not specified? That's what I don't understand. On the main page for Smithsonian Open-Access (linked above) it just says "Welcome to Smithsonian Open Access, where you can download, share, and reuse millions of the Smithsonian’s images—right now, without asking." There's no mention that there might be unknown exceptions to that.

If I hadn't gone digging around to find the Terms of Use (which most people don't do) I never would've seen the "non-guarantee" disclaimer. It sounds like they're saying they can't guarantee that their open-access images should actually be considered open-access.

Or is this just a "CYA" disclaimer in case they inadvertently host an image that ends up having other rights attached? BetsyRogers (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

It's really just a CYA, as well as a reminder that there are types of rights and restrictions beyond copyright (e.g., publicity rights, etc.) that could impact to what extent and in what contexts you can re-use the works freely. 19h00s (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

As for non-copyright considerations, you would know pretty much exactly as much (or as little) as in a picture you took yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 07:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Re-users need to know other laws applicable to them -- we can't know all laws in every area, though do try for some warning templates in some situations. When Commons says "public domain", they really mean strictly as it relates to copyright, not any other rights -- so unless being here actually violates some of those other laws, it should be OK. Commons has a similar CYA statement -- Commons:General disclaimer. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:56, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

§ 15 of C-M(2002)60: "All NATO information is subject to the provisions of the NATO Public Disclosure Policy (PO(90)32(Revised)) which provides for the disclosure of historically significant NATO information to the general public". (http://web.archive.org/web/20250824111916/https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2023/12/pdf/C-M_2002_60_ENG_NHQP1131668.pdf)

Now all the non-specific current NATO standards can be downloaded freely from the NSO website (example: STANAG 2116: NATO Codes for Grades of Military Personnel (Ed. 7) )

Unfortunately, not all old NATO standards can be found freely available. Some of them can be found on military websites of NATO states (example: STANAG 2116: NATO Codes for Grades of Military Personnel (Ed. 5) ))

One of the old standards is available on a resource for exchanging PDF files, but it is inconvenient to use there. I posted it on Wikimedia and listed all the information I could find about it: File:STANAG_2116_(Ed._6),_NATO_Codes_for_Grades_of_Military_Personnel.pdf

Formally, it is protected by copyright (in the new standards, the copyright sign is clearly indicated; here only the designation NATO UNCLASSIFIED), but I do not see any restrictions from NATO that would not allow it to be used, because this is unclassified information. Did I describe everything correctly?

P.S. We're talking about older versions of STANAG, which don't have the © sign. Regarding the newer ones, which do have the © sign, there are no questions: as far as I understand, they can be posted on Wikimedia, but with the {Attribution} indicating that the copyright belongs to NSO. Moreover, the new unclassified standards don't have the NATO UNCLASSIFIED label. Since it does exist, I found the regulation on NATO documents with this classification and quoted two paragraphs from it: (1) that NATO has two types of unclassified documents; (2) how documents marked NATO UNCLASSIFIED are distributed (in one case, this classification must be retained). Since such a requirement exists, I cited it, and it seems that this closes the matter. But I'm not a lawyer, and there's a nuance here: NATO is not a governmental organization of a specific country, but an international military organization in which the United States plays a leading role.JurKo22 (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Commons files must be free (free licensed or public domain). Unclassified is not the same thing as free. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you're right, and that's why it was important for me to correctly indicate the terms under which this information is being distributed. A colleague pointed to this source (https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/use-of-nato-content-and-brand), and I took everything relevant to my case from it (this isn't a photo, video, article, or map, so I omitted those points when describing the licensing terms). JurKo22 (talk) 05:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately, maybe you misinterpreted the notion of free content and/or the mission of Wikimedia. For details, please see:

• en:Free content
• Commons:Licensing
• Commons:FAQ.

Also, please note that the template "Copyrighted free use provided that" (used on the file linked above), which begins with the statement "The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that", cannot be used to include restrictions incompatible with free use and licensing policy, and is deprecated. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know that, but then the question arises of what to do with the old materials. JurKo22 (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

To be clear: The file "STANAG 2116 (Ed. 6), NATO Codes for Grades of Military Personnel.pdf" cannot remain with a non-free licensing. It must either get a justifiable free content tag or be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your concern! Please answer this question: which of the author's rights is violated by publishing this document here? Yes, it is not absolutely free: it cannot be sold, it cannot be used against NATO (but it can be used for objective criticism), its content cannot be changed, etc. But it is here solely so that readers of articles on military topics, especially articles about this standard, can access its contents free of charge in a convenient way, including offline. I have listed verbatim all the permissions and prohibitions granted by the copyright holder to this document, as well as all the nuances of its use, indicating the source of this permission and the date of this permission. There is just one caveat: the document is not taken from the NATO website. But I have a licensed copy of this document, officially "purchased" by me (a standards site "sold" it to me for 0.00, as they had no right to charge money). I compared them and saw no differences other than those introduced by the site that "sold" me this document (I put it in quotes because I didn't pay a cent, and therefore this can't be considered a sale). I agree that this document is more appropriate on wikisource.org, but it can't be uploaded there (I just tried), because it already exists here. JurKo22 (talk) 05:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@JurKo22: which of the author's rights is violated by publishing this document here? None. The reason Commons cannot host this is not because it would be illegal, but because it would be against policy. Commons hosts only documents that can be reused by anyone (including in works that are produced for a commercial purpose) and which allow derivative works. Those are matters of Commons' policy, not of law. They are why we cannot accept works that are licensed only under a licence like a CC-NC or CC-ND license. Yes, we could do so legally, but it would not our policy to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 06:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think we're getting our concepts mixed up. (A) I didn't place this document under CC-NC or CC-ND. (B) Commons.wikimedia.org contains copyrighted files posted here with usage restrictions. (C) What permission are we talking about? Should a NATO summit convene and vote on whether Wikipedia can host the outdated NATO standard? Should the parliaments of all NATO countries ratify this decision or not? Please forgive the sarcasm, but in my opinion, the requirements look similar to these. I was given information from the NATO website—I quoted it verbatim. Perhaps one point is unnecessary, but it's better to be on the safe side. Here are all the points except for the one that clearly doesn't apply to this standard:

(1) No material produced by NATO is to be sold, used for outside advertising or promotional purposes of any kind. (2) All content taken from NATO and republished must be clearly credited or sourced to NATO. (3) Photos, videos and articles are released under the legally recognized terms of "Fair Use" to members of the press, academia, non-profits and the general public. (4) No material is to be used in programs, articles or online publications of any kind that defame NATO or its member countries. (5) Material is provided, free of charge, for use in objective and balanced content, even if at times the end products may be critical of NATO. (6) In instances where a member country is criticized, NATO wishes it to be made known that it does not associate itself with the contents of the article, publication or broadcast. (7) NATO reserves the right to request the removal of NATO copyrighted material from any externally created content. (See: https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/use-of-nato-content-and-brand)

I was told that the template is outdated. Unfortunately, I'm not a lawyer, only a Ukrainian copyright expert: I don't know the nuances of any given country's copyright laws. I know that Wikipedia primarily follows US law, but it does take into account the laws of the country where a given document was created. I also know that all current NATO standards, which can be downloaded from the specialized NATO website, bear the © symbol. This symbol is missing here, and that's an important point. JurKo22 (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@JurKo22: Just how do you think "No material produced by NATO is to be sold" differs from "no commercial use"? - Jmabel ! talk 23:23, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your question. Answer: sale is a specific case of commercial use. Ukrainian law lists the following types of use of copyrighted material: 1) publication (release); 2) reproduction by any means and in any form; 3) translation; 4) adaptation, adaptation, arrangement, and other similar changes; 5) inclusion as a component in collections, databases, anthologies, encyclopedias, etc.; 6) public performance; 7) sale, rental (lease), etc.; 8) import of its copies, copies of its translations, adaptations, etc. Some of these types of use can only be commercial (sale, rental). If the sale is made for 0.00, then it can formally be called a sale: a sale is when I take at least one cent. Likewise, if the rental is made for 0.00, then it is no longer rental or leasing. JurKo22 (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Now let's look at what I did: I reproduced the text and included it in the database. All of this is free. Translating it into another language would have been possible, but that would have meant creating a new work, which is only possible with the copyright holder's permission (I didn't see either an explicit permission or an explicit prohibition). So I only did what didn't require permission, but I alerted other Wikipedia users that the copyright holder had granted permission. This is a matter of en:Crown copyright: it doesn't allow translation. JurKo22 (talk) 06:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@JurKo22: I guess you can post walls of text here to your heart's content, but the fact remains that if the offered license says is not legal to sell a copy of something, then it is not considered free enough for Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Then only three questions arise: (1) is it possible to leave what has already been done; (2) is it possible to do something similar in the future as it is done now; (3) if so, under what conditions? JurKo22 (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• This particular work *might* be ok, as it is a revision of a pre 1989 work originally simultaneously published in the US without a copyright notice, with minimal changes, despite the 2010 date. But in general, the NATO license is not free enough for Commons, see[1]. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for the information on the licensing terms of NATO information: everything related to this standard will be described in its licensing terms. JurKo22 (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks again for the information from the NATO website. Now I know what to write in such cases (I'm omitting the paragraph about maps, but including everything else). I need this because I edit military-related articles and try to ensure the reader can immediately see the text in an easy-to-read format. Although this case may not technically fall under copyright, it's better to always use the standard text from the NATO website and there won't be any problems: Wikimedia is a non-profit organization, and the information is used for the purpose of informing the general public, as stated in one or another unclassified NATO standard. JurKo22 (talk) 07:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I'm planning to upload several regulatory documents from the armed forces of Canada, Australia, and other countries, but it's easier: these are official documents of government agencies in those countries, so they're not protected by copyright. I was also faced with the dilemma of which license to upload under (I specified it incorrectly at the very beginning). Now I can upload even with the copyright symbol, but you must include all the terms of use and indicate the source of these terms. JurKo22 (talk) 07:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  No, it's not that simple. The United States puts the work of the federal government into the public domain, but the works of the Canadian and Australian governments are under a 50-year Crown Copyright, so newer works can't be uploaded here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for this detail; I didn't know that. I'm a Ukrainian copyright expert, so I'm well-versed in the nuances of copyright law there, but I might not be familiar with the nuances of copyright law in other countries. I thought that in Canada and Australia, government documents aren't protected like in the US, Ukraine, and Russia. JurKo22 (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  As I see it, materials can be posted here, but you need to indicate the conditions under which permission is required and under which permission is not required. (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/intellectual-property/crown-copyright.html) (https://www.defence.gov.au/copyright) JurKo22 (talk) 10:43, 17 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There is no free license there. Material cannot be uploaded to Commons with those terms. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You're right: I'll be uploading future documents to wikisource.org, where they're more appropriate. This one can't be uploaded there anymore (I just tried), because it already exists here. JurKo22 (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please don't. In general, the only works that should be uploaded to the English Wikisource are works that are in the US public domain but not PD in their home nation. Wikisource does not accept abandonware or any form of fair use works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to thank everyone involved in this active discussion. I don't want Wikipedia.org to have any problems, but I'd like to draw your attention to the en: Abandonware article, as it's a relative reference: it's an outdated standard and is only valuable historically, for tracking what and when changed in the standard's revisions. Here's the main article about the standard: en:NATO military rank codes. As you can see, the article has a very strong source base: everything is described as accurately as possible, primarily from regulatory documents. Until recently, the 6th edition of the standard wasn't there; more accurately, it was an unapproved version, i.e., simply a draft. In this case, my interest is the readers' right to the most reliable and readable information possible in this and similar articles. JurKo22 (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have updated the entirety of COM:CRT/Guinea. (edit). Some of my insights:

• As Bsslover371 said on COMTalk:CRT, there is inconsistency on the word of the number and the numbers in the articles about the terms, like "soixante-dix (80)". I'm confident that they shortened the term, though, since other references to the terms are always written as "(70)", like under the second paragraph of Article 95: "Les expressions du patrimoine culturel traditionnel dont les auteurs individuels sont inconnus mais pour lesquels il y a tout lieu de penser qu’ils sont ressortissants de la République de Guinée, appartiennent au patrimoine national. Il en est de même des expressions du patrimoine culturel traditionnel dont les auteurs individuels connus sont décédés depuis plus de soixante-dix (70) ans."
• Speaking of the "patrimoine culturel traditionnel", the new provisions on the Guinean cultural heritage are more restricted now. Article 99 speaks of the creation of derivative works of Guinean traditional cultural heritage. Guinean citizens can freely make derivative works, but foreigners must seek authorization from the Guinean Ministry of Culture to freely make derivative works of Guinean traditional cultural heritage. The fees to be collected from the foreigners are going to be divided between the Guinean Copyright Office and either the collector (if there is no arrangement) or the creator (if there is arrangement).
• It doesn't matter if the creator or author of the work of traditional cultural heritage is still living or have died for less or more than 70 years. A Guinean work falls under the traditional cultural heritage if it is exclusively made up of "elements characteristic of the traditional artistic and literary heritage of Guinea, or works created by individuals recognized as fulfilling the traditional artistic aspirations of that community. These works include, in particular, folk tales, folk poetry, folk songs and instrumental music, folk dances and performances, as well as artistic expressions of rituals and folk art productions" (Article 95). The restrictions on derivative works of these - imposed on the foreigners - prevail whether the artist died less than 70 years ago or more. Quote from the same article: "The same applies to expressions of traditional cultural heritage whose known individual authors have been deceased for more than seventy years."

Ping users from both Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory/Guinea and Commons talk:Copyright rules by territory#Nouvelle loi for their comments or insights: @Aboubacarkhoraa, DarwIn, Aymatth2, and Bsslover371: .

No retroactivity according to Article 126. Here is the to the WIPO copy of the Guinean law (in French only). _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 04:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour @JWilz12345.

Merci pour vos explications supplémentaire sur cette loi guinéen.Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also pinging @Aboubacarkhoraa (I'll also seek opinions from other users whom I mentioned).

Should we create a new COM:Non-copyright restriction template for images of objects of national cultural heritage of Guinea? The template will warn foreigners (like many of us) to not create derivative works of the images, due to possible "extraterritorial" application of the law (the restriction on derivative works specifically targets foreigners, not Guinean citizens). Similar to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}/{{Soprintendenza}} (both of which target Italians' domestic uses of public domain landmarks and monuments), perhaps the name of the tag is {{Guinea-traditional-heritage-foreign-disclaimer}})? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 12:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour @JWilz12345

Je vais te demander de me laisser quelques instants. Nous sommes en contact avec les autorités et je vais leur demander de m'aider à interpréter ces questions avec leurs spécialistes notamment le Bureau Guinéen des Droits d'Auteurs (BGDA) et l'Office National du Cinéma, de la Vidéo et de la Photographie de Guinée (ONACIG).

En plus (@JWilz12345, DarwIn, Aymatth2, and Bsslover371: ), je souhaite recueillir toutes vos questions pour les soumettre ensemble afin d'obtenir des éclaircissements qui nous permettront de mieux comprendre cette loi. Aboubacarkhoraa (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Here is my suggested wording for a non-copyright restriction template that may be imposed on all uploads of Guinean national cultural heritage and traditional expressions here, uploaded on or after June 7, 2019 (the date the law was adopted as per inserted comment at the bottom of the last page of the WIPO Lex's French copy of the law). Similar to the wording at {{Soprintendenza}}:

This media file – published on or after 7 June 2019 – shows an object or work from Guinea that imbues "the elements of the traditional artistic and literary heritage of the country, or works created by individuals recognized as fulfilling the traditional artistic aspirations of that community." Under the copyright law of Guinea (2019 version), Guinean citizens have unrestricted rights to create derivative works of such cultural objects or works, but foreigners should obtain necessary authorization from the Guinean Ministry of Culture if they desire to create derivative works of such cultural objects or works, and possibly payment of relevant fees to the State.

While Wikimedia Commons is hosted in the United States of America and is not required to follow non-US rules that do not concern copyright, Wikimedians and Internet users in general who are not citizens of Guinea (regardless of their location of online access) are cautioned that they are solely responsible for any possible violation of local Guinean law. See our general disclaimer for more information. These restrictions are independent of the copyright status of the depicted work, whose artist or last-surviving artist has died for more than 70 years.

It is of course a question of how Guinean courts and authorities will enforce their law extraterritorially (given that only foreigners are not allowed to freely create derivatives of Guinean cultural heritage works). If they indeed have the way to enforce it outside their country, it is also a question if a photo or video of a Guinean cultural object (in public domain) constitutes a derivative work by itself and hosting of such media files by Wikimedia (despite this prospective template attached to those files) is already a breach of Articles 99-101 of the Guinean copyright law. _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 06:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

File:Chappaquiddick incident by UPI.jpg has been uploaded to Commons under a {{PD-US-no notice}} license. The photo is credited to UPI and wire service photos such as this from this period can be tricky to assess. Assuming the copyright holder is UPI, it's not totally out of the realm of possibility that the original photo sent out over the wire to various media outlets did include a copyright notice, and, therefore, this release of the photo would be considered "publication" under US copyright law at the time. So, even if the photo did appear in one or more newspapers without an individual notice for the photo itself or in a newspaper without its own copyright notice the paper as a whole, it still could be considered protected under US copyright at the time, couldn't it?

I'm not so sure it a good idea to rely on archive sites like en:Newspapers.com as sources for wire service photos such as this simply because there's no way to know what type of contract a paper might have entered into with UPI for the photo. If this is still protected and assuming the name of the photographer can be figured out, then photo could still be protected per 70 years p.m.a. If it's considered a en:work for hire, it could still be protected until January 1, 2065 (95 years + 1 year after first publication). FWIW, the same photo can be seen used here by en:FOX News and here by en:Der Spiegel, and both sites attribute the photo to en:Getty Images. Another UPI photo of the Chappaquidick site shown here taken a few days after the incident shows a clear watermark and is being licensed by UPI from its official website, which kind of makes me feel that this particular one also could've had a copyright notice that newspapers left out when using the photo. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

You can see the previous discussions like Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/02#h-Copyright_for_wire_photos_published_from_1963-1978-20250214230200, Special:Diff/425814117#File:Campus_Guns.jpg. I have never seen a copyright notice on a UPI photo you can see a copy of this one here. If UPI had some contract that newspapers should include a notice it was clearly ignored by mass number of newspapers for decades, According to cases like Letter Edged in Black Press vs Public Building Commission of Chicago after repeatedly tolerating publication without notice it cannot be claimed to be unauthorized  ${\displaystyle 999}$ REAL 💬 ⬆   09:27, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think you've literally just proved it was sent out without notice. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 11:32, 20 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

UPI sent copies to many, many newspapers. When it's a small percentage that don't have copyright notices -- and by 1969 most did -- I don't think even a fair number would make any difference. The law seems to allow a "relative few" copies without notice without losing the copyright. I think court rulings, from memory, have put that line somewhere between 1 and 2 percent. But, if the newspapers were instructed to have a notice, I'm not sure their failure can actually cause a loss of copyright. For a copy distributed by UPI themselves, the notice would have to be there. When it comes to wire photos though, I do wonder about the technicalities. The law requires actual distribution of copies without notice -- something that is technically published, say by offering for sale, but where no copies were actually distributed did not lose its copyright. For copies printed at a newspaper office and kept private to them, I'm really not sure. If UPI actually sent out these physical copies, then sure that is fine. On the other hand, there certainly does seem to be a place here where the notice could have been added, and is not there. That physical copy linked above clearly existed in 1969, but not quite sure its provenance -- it may have not actually been distributed until much later. On the other hand, sending the photos to clients should be publication, and if there was a place for a notice, I can see the argument that it should have been there. If the caption was added by a newspaper and kept private, then I'm less sure. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:Flags of Thai Scouting consists of some very sophisticated images that are clearly above threshold of origin. Assuming that these are the correct flags, should they be allowed on Commons? {{PD-TH-exempt}} only allows for government work. When I look at their regulations, Thailand's National Scout Committee is established by the government, headed by government officials, but is considered "a state agency in which is neither a government agency nor a state enterprise under the law on budget is procedure and any other laws". -- 痛^Designism (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Also, I believe at least some of these contain only non-copyrightable variations on things that are old enough to be in the public domain. E.g. it would surprise me if there were anything copyrightable about [[:File:Flag of the Scouts of Nakhon Chai Si.svg] or File:Flag of the Scouts of Udon.svg. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

How short does a text have to be before copyright is no longer applicable? I was thinking of adding an image that compares how some (print) encyclopedias have formatted their cross-references. Could I use photos of single words? Could I include the adjacent (non cross-referenced) word? Are the line below too short for copyright, or would they be fair use and not elligble for an image on the Commons?

• "wuxing, translated as ☞'five agents' or 'five phases';"
• "☞donkey, grapefruit, knees"
• "(SNPs); [☞'SNP'] on one chromosome or part of a chromosome"

Rjjiii (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

In court :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Lol. Fair. I'm just going to use an older public domain book. Rjjiii (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

FWIW, in the U.S., some of Ashleigh Brilliant's aphorisms have been successfully defended as copyrightable. These are typically sentences about 7 words long. However, the court decision was based on the fact that they were, well, brilliantly concise, and were therefore eligible for copyright despite their brevity. - Jmabel ! talk 21:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

nasıl görsel ekleyeceğiz? Kalkanzade (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Kalkanzade: Hi, If the copyright is uncertain, the picture is probably not OK for Commons. But without any more information, it is difficult to say. Do you have any example? Yann (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Merhaba, bu mecrada yeniyim ve hiçbir bilgiye hakim değilim. Örneği sana nasıl ulaştırabilirim? Kalkanzade (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

(reading via Google translate) @Kalkanzade: if it is already online somewhere, you can provide the URL of the relevant web page. If there are multiple images on that page, be clear about which one you are referring to. - Jmabel ! talk 21:22, 21 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What's the current situation in regard to Star Wars cosplay of Stormtroopers? Is that kind of motif rather governed per COM:COSTUME and predominantly deemed OK or is that a case of depicted models and thus a possible copyvio? I'm quite sure that there were some discussions, examples, essays and helping texts around, but I forgot where. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• A UK case ruled that Stormtrooper helmets (and possibly by extension the rest of the armor) was uncopyrightable as the armor was functional, covered only by a 15 year design right in w:Lucasfilm_Ltd_v_Ainsworth. Note the court declined to rule on the copyright status of the Stormtrooper gear in other countries, stating only that it was legal in the UK. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 06:17, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  @Clindberg: Could you help me with some infos? I wonder whether:

  • "Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Central District of California gave summary judgement in favour of Lucasfilm, awarding USD $20 million in compensation." is a sufficient robust case law to say that Stormtrooper stuff is copyright protected in the US (quote taken from en:Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth).
  • if you happen to know some online resource to read the actual ruling. There are some references here: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/cacdce/2:2005cv03434/173747 but the website of the United States District Court for the Central District of California itself gave me a 404 when I wanted to access it before writing this. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Summary judgements aren't binding law for other cases, they just mean the plaintiff stated a bare minimum case and the defendant failed to object or appear. I'm pretty sure we have a Mike Godwin rule for cosplay in effect here at Commons, as well. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 18:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Yes, the Spiderman and Pirates of the Caribean things by Mike Godwin are linked at COM:COSTUME. But: isn't Mike only a lawyer? I fear that a judgement, even a summary one, made by an official, sworn judge, will trump any lawyer opinion... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  I'm not sure a summary judgement means anything for other cases. It's used when there is no disputed facts, so there is no real ruling or decision from a judge that can set a precedent -- everything the plaintiff says is accepted as fact without analysis. That said, yes I'm sure that in order to make stormtrooper costumes, you need to get a copyright and trademark license to do so. Many costumes are more just clothing and thus utilitarian, but masks are not so they are more likely separately copyrightable. But on the other hand, you really need to have a photo focusing on the copyrightable aspects -- the Ets Hokin decision when the photo is of a larger subject it's not derivative of unavoidable parts, probably comes into play quite often. I'm really not aware of a photograph of cosplay ever being the subject of a copyright case -- most are probably fine. It may be more an issue when a photo is really focusing on the costume in particular, particularly the mask which is more like a sculpture, and not really the environment the people are in, which is more a possible issue. 2014-04-26 C2E2 98 (14046601602).jpg and maybe a couple of others, for example. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Disney sells licensed replicas of this helmet/armor now. Plus you can still buy the public domain version from the UK. So it's not accurate to say the cosplayers all illegally made whatever they're wearing. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 21:07, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Sheesh! "[A summary judgement is] used when there is no disputed facts" - then it's an undisputable fact that the Stormtrooper cosplays are copyright protected and thus unfit for Commons, isn't it? As it stands now, Lucasfilm won their case and got an affirmation of them being copyrighted, and that was a summary judgement, so an undisputed fact per Carl... Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  An undisputed fact is not an indisputable fact. It is a fact that was not disputed. If Lucasfilm didn't contest a fact, then it was not in their interest to challenge. If someone without a large legal team specialized in the case didn't dispute a fact, it's a lot more possible to be in error. Cases are lost all the time because a particular issue was not brought up in a timely manner, and unknown number of cases were lost because the lawyer didn't know they should bring up an issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  And COM:PRP does forbid us to dispute such a fact established before, even if it may be disputable, doesn't it? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 15:51, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello; I amatorially made a digital version (with color) of the logo of the italian political party Democrazia Proletaria (Proletarian Democracy); taking inspiration from a photograph in which the logo can be seen behind a politician (Luigi Cipriani) from that party.

Can I upload the file I made or is it under copyright since I didn't make the original logo? Firedbolt (talk) 13:41, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The logo there looks like mostly an arrangement of PD elements. I'm not sure how that sits under Italian copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk 23:52, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

So what do I do? Firedbolt (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Firedbolt: basically, you have three choices. (1) You wait for someone here to actually express an opinion, rather than just make a remark as I did, (2) you upload on some license/PD basis you think is reasonably OK (including using "permission" section of {{Information}} to give your explanation of why you think it is OK), or (3) you don't upload this to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 19:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

WID was added to Commons:Free media resources/Datagraphics but as far as I can see they failed to put the graphics under a free license like CCBY (and it's not unlikely nobody has asked them about it so far). For now, I just moved it under a section "Resources that do not specify a free license".

Are these or many/most of these data visualizations indeed clearly in the public domain ({{PD-map}} and {{PD-chart}})?
Prototyperspective (talk) 13:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Website footer says "Our charts, articles, and data are licensed under CC BY, unless stated otherwise." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:09, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Really? I can't see this in the footer – are we talking about the same website?: https://wid.world Prototyperspective (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was looking at https://ourworldindata.org/ - the first entry on the page to which you linked. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:03, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

This PDF (and thus the charts in it) has an "NC", non-open licence. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks; so far I would conclude that the resource would be best to remove from that page again. Maybe somebody here could address the idea of using the charts on the page anyway with {{PD-map}} and {{PD-chart}}. I don't know when this can be used and avoid using a license not specified by creators of complex graphics. Imo one could with modern methods probably easily create CCBY data graphics based on the data they published but I have not much of a clue when it comes to the graphics they produced. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:37, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm looking to include this logo (from here) in an infobox for a Wikipedia article about the organization. From my limited understanding of the non-free policy I think this should be permissible, but I don't see how to upload legitimate use of non-free work in the Upload Wizard. Is there another process to use? Thanks! Placeholderer (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Fair use is not accepted on Commons, you will need to locally upload this file to Wikipedia. You could also use the template {{PD-textlogo}} as simple text logos are usually ineligible for copyright. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 20:14, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Yes, assuming it's about the English Wikipedia: go to en:Wikipedia:File upload wizard and select the non-free option. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Addendum: your logo should qualify as simple text, as hinted to by Nard. It's most likely not protected by copyrights. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Placeholderer: I'm going to slightly disagree with what's been posted above about the logo being too simple to be eligible for copyright protection. Since the organization the logo represents is based out of South Africa, COM:TOO South Africa would be applicable in addition to COM:TOO US. While I can see how this would be PD-textlogo under US copyright law, I'm not sure the same can be said for South African copyright law, particularly how South Africa's TOO is described by Commons. So, it might be better instead to upload this locally to English Wikipedia under a en:Template:PD-ineligible-USonly license since English Wikipedia is not really concerned or as concerned about South African copyright law as Commons is. The other option of uploading the logo locally to English Wikipedia as non-free content would work if you're planning on using the logo for primary identification purposes in the main infobox or at the top of a stand-alone article about the Women For Change, but no such article currently exists. If, on the other hand, you're looking to add the logo to a subsection of another article which mentions the organization as part of the encyclopedic coverage of a broader subject, then I don't think you'll be able to justify such a non-free use in terms of Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'm working to create the article (it's a WIP in a browser tab currently), and it'll just be in the main infobox—but I've already uploaded it to Commons. Shall I nominate it for deletion? Thanks for the notice Placeholderer (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

("uploaded it" referring to the logo) Placeholderer (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, In the cases of Category:Judgement Day - Wassily Kandinsky and Category:Two Squares - Wassily Kandinsky, should I remove the frame, or are they acceptable with PD-Art? Here the frames have matching colors with the paintings, which seems to be on purpose. Thanks, Yann (talk) 14:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

In the specific case of Two Squares, it probably isn't necessary to remove the frame, as the frame is almost entirely flat (2D). The problem is with 3D frames where choices in lighting are important. Those choices then impart a degree of uniqueness and originality to the photo, potentially attracting copyright protection for the photo itself. I'm not sure about the case of Judgement Day. Nosferattus (talk) 15:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Just the other day, I had a discussion with a museum curator and they said, they were so happy to be able to show a certain artwork still in the original frame. In the case of your two Kandinskys we can actuelly see that the artists took special meassures to properly frame his artwork. So the artworks would be mutilated in my eyes by cutting them out of their frames. The Centre Pompidou does take photocredit ("Centre Pompidou, MNAM-CCI/Jacques Faujour/Dist. GrandPalaisRmn"), but the mere reproduction even of the frame doesn't create a copyright of its own accorrding to Article 14. of the Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. The thresholds have been raised after this directive. Wuselig (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible for users to set a undeletion category for a file while also nominating it for speedy deletion for copyvio? Trade (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Trade: if that is your intention, add an overt link to the file in the undeletion date category. You'll see a ton of these in Category:Undelete in 2029. (Anything else will get lost when the file is deleted, if there is no DR to categorize.) - Jmabel ! talk 03:34, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What is the copyright status of the flag designs in this FoI request (PDF reply viewable as HTML at [2])?

My thought are that while it is a new design, it comprises six heraldic symbols and a border which are presumably PD-old, and their 3×2 arrangement is too simple to copyright. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:32, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Is a public video of a public hearing by the U.S. government's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's Committee on Oversight and Reform's Task Force in the public domain?

And what about a public video of a public hearing by a subcommittee of the U.S. government's House Oversight and Accountability committee?

If both or either is, which license tag to use?
Prototyperspective (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean by "public video"? The PD status depends on who filmed the video - if it was, for example, C-Span or a news organization, then it's not public domain. If the House Committees filmed and released the videos themselves, then yes the videos can be categorized as PD US Gov. The content of the video doesn't matter, you can make copyrighted video of Congressional Committee hearings if you're not a government employee and you have access to the hearing/permission to film. It's the creator of the video that matters. 19h00s (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I mean that the video is available to the public, intentionally so and released by the respective government org. The videos are featured on the gov website for the hearings and were posted on the Web by the GOP Oversight account. So it seems the videos are in the public domain. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If it was initially published by the government then it is public domain, but "GOP Oversight" sounds like something partisan. Can you link the "gov website" in question? Much easier to discuss specifics than possibly ambiguous phrases. - Jmabel ! talk 20:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Given the above information I just uploaded the two files I was talking about: here and here. If there's an issue, it could also be raised there. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi all,

There is an image of Mamula on his USGS staff profile, located at https://www.usgs.gov/staff-profiles/ned-mamula. The USGS' images policy states that "the content of most USGS websites is in the U.S. Public Domain ... [copyrighted materials] are generally marked as being copyrighted." Because there is no indication on the webpage that the image does not belong to the USGS, one would think it would fall under PD-USGov.

I happen to have also noticed that a picture posted by a private company (his former employer) from before he was a USGS employee uses the same background, leading me to think that the images are from the same photoshoot. In that case, the photo on his USGS profile would not be in the public domain because it was not taken as a USGS staff image.

Can the image on his USGS profile be uploaded to Commons if it has not been listed as anything other than a public domain photograph?

Thanks in advance for helping clear this up! BhamBoi (talk) 23:42, 24 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

https://web.archive.org/web/20121129042959/http://www.seo-translator.com/machine-translation-no-copyright-on-the-result/

(please ignore the spammy website name) I am curious to know if the conclusion here is in accordance with Commons policy Trade (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

There will usually be copyright on the result from machine translation because there was copyright on the original work. Machine translation won't produce a new copyright, but it won't remove the one that was there. It's likely to be apply more broadly than generative AI, since all any user who didn't write the text is doing is hitting a button. From one perspective, the prompt is trivial; from another the "prompt" is very non-trivial and clearly copyrightable, but the users of the translation software usually aren't the ones who wrote the "prompt".--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:29, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I'd like to upload a photo of a newspaper article from 1937 that my father had. The article describes an airplane accident that my grandfather Jerzy Gablenz (1888-1937) perished in. I'd like to understand how I can legally add this document to page: pl:Katastrofa lotnicza pod Piasecznem. According to a quick search in Google... Under the copyright law in effect in Poland in 1937, a newspaper article entered the public domain 50 years after its publication. The Polish copyright law of March 29, 1926, was in force in Poland at the time the article was published. The law stipulated a 50-year term of protection that began at the time of publication. The 50-year period began in 1937, therefore the copyright expired on December 31, 1987. As of 2025, the article has been in the public domain for many years. In 1994, Poland passed a new copyright law that retroactively extended copyright terms for some works. However, this did not revive the copyright for works that had already entered the public domain under previous laws. Thank you, George Gablenz George Gablenz (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

If everything you say is accurate, then this should be in the public domain, but I'm not sure if we have a relevant template. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 25 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I'd like to add some images to the Sask. Provincial Police article.

Third image on this cite: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/sask-government-to-look-into-creating-provincial-police-force-for-the-2nd-time-1.6234231

First image on this cite: https://paherald.sk.ca/museum-musings-saskatchewan-provincial-police/

Image on this cite: https://esask.uregina.ca/entry/saskatchewan_provincial_police.html

Two of the images are from the Sask Archives Board/ the Encyclopedia of Saskatchewan. I'm not sure about the other. As far as I can tell Canadian copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author. Any insight as to if any of these images are allowable? Thank you in advance! ConfidentBobcat (talk) 04:14, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• Old Canadian photos were only copyrighted for 50 years, see {{PD-Canada}}. These images are safe to upload. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 05:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for the quick reply! I appreciate the clarification. Perhaps I should have been able to find that myself... Thank you! ConfidentBobcat (talk) 05:11, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've just created a stub article on enwp for Ludwig von Baczko, and was hoping to add this portrait local to dewp. The artist isn't currently identified on the file page, I'm pretty sure this is Friedrich Wilhelm Bollinger (1777–1825), but if not, what would the relevant license template be (the current one prevents the Commons Export tool from being used). There's also a higher resolution scan of the same copy of the book (both are from München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek) on MDZ (the dewp scan is from Google Books, and not great quality). After working out the correct license to add, would it be better to upload the MDZ copy here, and leave the dewp file where it is, or update the license on dewp, and export it here? ‑‑Yodin^T 12:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

The German Digital Library (Deutsche Digitale Bibliothek) confirms that the author of the image is Bollinger: they have two images [3] where the first one is the one you want to upload and the second one is the one with author information. So, this should be {{PD-Art-100}}. Nakonana (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Or {{PD-old-auto-1996}}. And the version that is of better quality is the preferred version for upload. Nakonana (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Good find, thanks! I'll use that as the basis for a new cropped version, and try to get the dewp version moved to Commons after the license change has passed pending review there. ‑‑Yodin^T 17:59, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Hi, What is the proper category for Bauhaus garden for these files? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I'd guess the photos were taken in the garden of Bauhaus Dessau. Nakonana (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

Category:Bauhaus Dessau. Nakonana (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• File:Nina Kandinsky and Gertrud Grote in the Bauhaus garden in Dessau.jpg
• File:Mrs. Guggenheim, Vassily Kandinsky, Hilla von Rebay, Solomon R. Guggenheim in the Bauhaus garden in Dessau.jpg

Title basically. They're entirely automated, the people recording them record everything, the words being uttered certainly have no artistic merit...

Would they be ok to upload? JustARandomSquid (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

 Comment, see similar discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2025/01#Air traffic control recordings & TOO. Thanks. Tvpuppy (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

What to use for File:1927_Aŭstralio_-_lando_kaj_popolo_(mapo).jpg? PD-scan? PD-map? Both? DustDFG (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

• I updated the tagging with author death dates and PD-map. Looks fine to me. -Nard (Hablemonos) (Let's talk) 14:19, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have contacted the photographer of this picture and they are willing to release it under CC0 via VRT. However I am unsure on what actions are needed regarding the rights of the subject of the picture, Ari Lemmke, in order for the picture to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons. See also my proposal on how to approach this, which got no replies. It's moon (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply